Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c21.s3.22

c21.s3.22

same king. The epigraphic passage referring to Lakshmī's *svayambara*, therefore, does not *necessarily* imply that there was a struggle between the sons of Kumāra, in which Skanda came off victorious. It only means that among the princes he was specially fortunate and was considered to be the best fitted to rule because of the valiant fight he had put up against the enemies of the family and empire. In the Allahabad *praśasti* we have a similar passage:—"who (Samudra Gupta) being looked at with envy by the faces, melancholy through the rejection of themselves, of others of equal birth...was bidden by his father,—who exclaiming 'verily he is worthy' embraced him—to govern of a surety the whole world." It may be argued that there is no proof that Skanda was selected by Kumāra. On the contrary he is said to have been selected by Lakshmī of her own accord. But such was also the case with Harsha. Skanda like Harsha was called upon to save the empire of his forbears at a time when the fortunes of the imperial family were at a low ebb, and both these eminent men owed their success to their own prowess. The important thing to remember is that the avowed enemies of Skanda Gupta mentioned in his inscriptions were outsiders like the Pushyamitras, Hūṇas,¹ and Mlechchhas.² The *manujendra-putras* of the Junāgaḍh Inscription are mentioned only as disappointed suitors, not as defeated enemies, comparable to the brothers of Samudra Gupta who were discarded by Chandra Gupta I. We are, therefore, inclined to think that as the tottering Gupta empire was saved from its enemies (*e.g.*, the Pushyamitras) by Skanda Gupta it was he who was considered to be the best fitted to rule. There is no evidence that his brothers disputed his claim and actually fought for the crown. There is nothing to show that Skanda shed his brothers' blood and that the epithets "*amalātmā*," 'pure-souled,' and "*parahitakārī*," 'the benefactor of others,' applied to him in the Bhitarī Inscription and coin legends,¹ were unjustified.